j_b Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 As far as the link I said where you could get the data you'll have to do the calcs yourself ha! the truth comes out. BLS didn't just compare this recession to the previous one. you made some calculations and apparently you don't want to list the assumptions you had to make to compute these numbers. yes? beside didnt you say youd trust me this once? no i didn't. i said i'd give you the benefit of the doubt w.r.t. your falsely asserting you already gave a link to the data and then, i quickly added that i'd still like to see a link. yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Deepak and Ming-Li don't seem to mind. I agree that Dieter and Laurent may have to come back from the Cote D'Azur a couple of weeks early from now on, but I can live with that. right, if it's just the neighbors down the street, who gives a shit. fuck'em oh, and don't forget that Dieter and Laurent produce more per hour than you do ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Odd sentiments from one who would consign the developing world to poverty by denying them the right to put their comparative advantages to use in their own service in the global marketplace. If allowing as much of the world to lift themselves out of poverty requires a bit of extra exertion and discipline on our part, I think that's a fair trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Just a little side note that I have to mention b/c it pisses me off. Corp's aren't only no longer offering pensions to new employees, they are chosing not to pay them to old employees. Due to changing accounting and auditing laws (Sarbanes Oxley, BASIL, etc), corps have to put pension payouts on the sheet (fair enough--it is a liability). But b/c pensions are not federally insured, legally required, or mandated in any way, corp's are dropping them to boost revenue appearances. This is especially true when the corp is being acquired by another corp. Older workers are getting fucked in a bad way. Again. It is disgusting. Okay, back to the regular program... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Odd sentiments from one who would consign the developing world to poverty by denying them the right to put their comparative advantages to use in their own service in the global marketplace. If allowing as much of the world to lift themselves out of poverty requires a bit of extra exertion and discipline on our part, I think that's a fair trade. you've got to be kidding. leveling from the bottom is one bad option for them and us. anyway, it's not by handing these people's national assets to multinational corps (such as the world bank and the imf are doing) that they'll get out of poverty. furthermore, as if you gave a rat's ass about poverty in the developing world, demagogue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 I'd say I give enough to argue against prolonging it by denying them the right to make the best use of the few assets that they have to actually make a living, rather than subsisting on foreign aid and the odd infusion of cash and self-righteous blather emmanating from graying Britpop acts, pampered parlor Marxists, protectionists, et al - which is rather more than you can claim, kemosabe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 spare me the hypocritical tripe: The corporations which helped to immiserate Africa are being given control of its development. The G8’s debt reduction plan is little better than an extortion racket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 (edited) oh, and don't forget that Dieter and Laurent produce more per hour than you do ... Ah the amazing output factoid. Again you make my argument for me. Make labor expensive and only the best labor will be used. Subsitutions will be made (thats capital goods replacing labor for you J_B) So what happens? Labor intensive industries leave (Alabama has a nice Mercedes plant doesn't it? Whoever made the Alabama post should really read more) Less people work. (read higher unemployment rates, less chance of rehire, and lots of African/Mid East laborers sitting on their hands unable to move into society.) Thanks again for showing how much Europe sucks. Edited August 4, 2005 by Peter_Puget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 oh, and don't forget that Dieter and Laurent produce more per hour than you do ... Ah the amazing output factoid. Again you make my argument for me. Make labor expensive and only the best labor will be used. Peter darling more efficent labor is, by definition, cheaper labor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 CJ My love, you are again incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 CJ My love, you are again incorrect. If Dieter produces sales of x per unit of salary, and Joe produces sales of y per unit of salary, if x>y Dieter is more efficent, and all other factors excluded, cheaper. It's those other factors, like restrictive labor laws that make Europe unattractive for employers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 (edited) Again you make my argument for me. amazing! either a) your ego is so large you won't ever realize you have been exposed as a fraud, or b) you actually don't care because most folks won't bother sorting through the pile of dudu you have laid upon us since the beginning of this thread. Your increasing spitefulness makes me believes in option b. so, to summarize, it appears you went to the BLS site, picked some numbers (in some ways you refuse to divulge), concocted some bogus comparison between this and the previous recession, presented your "analysis" as if it was BLS sanctionned, refused to admit your little exercise was "validated" in your living room, and to top it all you had the gall to dismiss the CBPP report as unsubstantiated? did i get this right? please feel free to offer any bit that might clarify the sequence of events ... Edited August 4, 2005 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 is it the deafening sound of silence that i hear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Glad to see you are back in prime sparring form. Dust of the box-set of Joan Baez LP's before logging in yesterday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 ah, yes. the tired "you hippy" standby/all purpose insult. perhaps you should think of something new. but hey, since you're around, did you finally figure out that if a (profit) = b (revenue) + c (labor cost), there is more than one way a can increase? or perhaps you knew it all along but were just playing dumb? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Again you make my argument for me. amazing! either a) your ego is so large you won't ever realize you have been exposed as a fraud, or b) you actually don't care because most folks won't bother sorting through the pile of dudu you have laid upon us since the beginning of this thread. Your increasing spitefulness makes me believes in option b. so, to summarize, it appears you went to the BLS site, picked some numbers (in some ways you refuse to divulge), concocted some bogus comparison between this and the previous recession, presented your "analysis" as if it was BLS sanctionned, refused to admit your little exercise was "validated" in your living room, and to top it all you had the gall to dismiss the CBPP report as unsubstantiated? did i get this right? please feel free to offer any bit that might clarify the sequence of events ... Ouch, Ouch!!! Point, set, match to JB on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 ah, yes. the tired "you hippy" standby/all purpose insult. perhaps you should think of something new. but hey, since you're around, did you finally figure out that if a (profit) = b (revenue) + c (labor cost), there is more than one way a can increase? or perhaps you knew it all along but were just playing dumb? Yeah, old, but oh so apt. As for your equation - it seems to indicate that profit equals the sum of revenue and labor costs. While I do enjoy cracking open Smith, Von Hayek, Von Mises et al from time to time, I can hardly call myself an expert - but to my uninformed eyes it certainly looks as though you have unveiled a novel proposition there. In your model, then, one can increase profits without limit by increasing labor costs, per the equation profit = revenue + labor costs. This finding should certainly delight our European friends, who while perhaps not able to express this relationship you've discerned well enough to reduce it to an equation, certainly seem to have been implicity aware of it for long enough to make it the basis of their industrial and wage policy since the early '70s. Thanks for the lesson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Yeah, old, but oh so apt. how much do you charge for your psychobabbling via the internet? if anyone actually falls for it, i should give it a try. As for your equation - it seems to indicate that profit equals the sum of revenue and labor costs. While I do enjoy cracking open Smith, Von Hayek, Von Mises et al from time to time, I can hardly call myself an expert - but to my uninformed eyes it certainly looks as though you have unveiled a novel proposition there. In your model, then, one can increase profits without limit by increasing labor costs, per the equation profit = revenue + labor costs. This finding should certainly delight our European friends, who while perhaps not able to express this relationship you've discerned well enough to reduce it to an equation, certainly seem to have been implicity aware of it for long enough to make it the basis of their industrial and wage policy since the early '70s. Thanks for the lesson. apparently you need more than one lesson. i didn't realize we needed to cover the number line: http://www.learningwave.com/chapters/integers/numline.html be ready for a quizz in a couple hours, especially with respect to negative numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 CJ My love, you are again incorrect. If Dieter produces sales of x per unit of salary, and Joe produces sales of y per unit of salary, if x>y Dieter is more efficent, and all other factors excluded, cheaper. It's those other factors, like restrictive labor laws that make Europe unattractive for employers. CJ your silliness never ceases to amaze me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Again you make my argument for me. amazing! either a) your ego is so large you won't ever realize you have been exposed as a fraud, or b) you actually don't care because most folks won't bother sorting through the pile of dudu you have laid upon us since the beginning of this thread. Your increasing spitefulness makes me believes in option b. so, to summarize, it appears you went to the BLS site, picked some numbers (in some ways you refuse to divulge), concocted some bogus comparison between this and the previous recession, presented your "analysis" as if it was BLS sanctionned, refused to admit your little exercise was "validated" in your living room, and to top it all you had the gall to dismiss the CBPP report as unsubstantiated? did i get this right? please feel free to offer any bit that might clarify the sequence of events ... Increasing spitefullness?!?!? Come on Joe have I no shame? LOL Actually proving my argument was in refeence to past discussions about Europe. The clue was simply to read the bit where I thanked you for proving how Europe sucks. In your defense to the BLS issue, I would point out that the stats I showed earlier are in fact very esoteric so I am not surprised by your discomfort with them. Your report showed no detailed calculations. I must admit I am wary when earlier you used data thru 2004 to compare to my June 2005 data. Certainly a math wizard such as yourself know that when we are measuring recoveries in months, 6 months is very significant. So your record in this thread of misrepresenting facts clearly makes any links without detailed supporting docutmentation less valued than one of CJ@$#X's shit posts. Cheers, Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Increasing spitefullness?!?!? Come on Joe have I no shame? LOL apparently you don't. it's very ugly to witness. get a hold of yourself! Actually proving my argument was in refeence to past discussions about Europe. The clue was simply to read the bit where I thanked you for proving how Europe sucks. the only thing you proved is that you are a xenophobe. In your defense to the BLS issue, I would point out that the stats I showed earlier are in fact very esoteric so I am not surprised by your discomfort with them. what is esoteric is your way of supplying supporting evidence that is meaningless (or at least unverifyable). Your report showed no detailed calculations. the report clearly showed the analysed data and what it meant I must admit I am wary when earlier you used data thru 2004 to compare to my June 2005 data. Certainly a math wizard such as yourself know that when we are measuring recoveries in months, 6 months is very significant. So your record in this thread of misrepresenting facts clearly makes any links without detailed supporting docutmentation less valued than one of CJ@$#X's shit posts. this certainly feels like grade-school level argumentation. I am officially bored with this thread. sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 the only thing that is amazing is, yes, the amount of 'crap' your posts generate. perhaps you ought to consider a prune danish or something from the Taco Bell menu and save us all from your self-delusional sanctimony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Just imagine what would happen if we took the 100's of billions of dollars we have spent on this shit and actually worried about our "homeland".I am not fond of the patriot act but at least I think we could give emergency people the $ and training they need. You know instead of giving $ to suspected terrorits that may have been mistreated. If we are such good guys. why did the white house shy away from Rwanda? Face it were pumping money to get money. I've been here in Iraq and think they are just waiting for us to leave. Of course it's all opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Just imagine what would happen if we took the 100's of billions of dollars we have spent on this shit and actually worried about our "homeland".I am not fond of the patriot act but at least I think we could give emergency people the $ and training they need. You know instead of giving $ to suspected terrorits that may have been mistreated. If we are such good guys. why did the white house shy away from Rwanda? Face it were pumping money to get money. I've been here in Iraq and think they are just waiting for us to leave. Of course it's all opinion. And a good, informed, realistic opinion at that. It's a bit too easy for the rest of us to pontificate from far away, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 decreasing our dependence on foreign oil would do more for homeland security than any amount of money poured into emergency and training. the $300billions already allocated/spent and the further $400billions needed over the next decade to keep control of iraq would have been better used to develop alternative energy technologies. addressing the problem of decreasing oil resources, diminishing exposure resulting from predatory foreign policy, developing new technologies and jobs versus the iraq quagmire and the fury of violent extremists, ought to have been an easy and obvious choice ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.